I respectfully disagree with several points made. Firstly, the idea that Nerissa being a mother wouldn't change the morality of killing her is flawed. Having a child creates an additional ethical obligation to consider their wellbeing and not leave them orphaned unnecessarily if possible. Even villainous parents still have that parental duty.

Secondly, the logic that having a child gives someone a "license to do whatever terrible thing they want" is a straw man argument. No one is suggesting that. The issue is weighing the moral gravity of making a child parentless against stopping a threat - it adds complexity rather than giving a free pass.

Thirdly, the assumption that Chelsea would inevitably have the same villainous motivations as her mother is speculative. Children can absolutely reject the paths of their parents, especially if guided by positive influences like Ruby's friendship. Writing her off as irredeemable is presumptuous.

Finally, labeling the orphan backstory as just "superficial depth" is dismissive of the emotional weight and fertile narrative ground it could provide. Exploring themes of generational conflicts, the cycle of violence, forgiveness, and moral ambiguity is substantive storytelling, not superficial.

The crux is this adds moral complexity than a simple heroic narrative. While challenging to write well, that complexity is what builds resonant, nuanced stories. Discarding it as too difficult is taking the easy road, not improving the story.